#25: The Baskerville Curse (1983) May 7, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, adaptations, 1 star, 1980s, 2008, Mystery, Sherlock Holmes , add a comment1983 | Eddy Graham | 67 mins | DVD | U / G
Peter O’Toole is Sherlock Holmes (well, his voice) once again in this animated Conan Doyle adaptation from the ’80s (see also my reviews of two others, The Sign of Four and A Study in Scarlet). Of course, this is an adaptation of that perennially popular Holmes story, The Hound of the Baskervilles, and as such O’Toole barely features. A shame, as he’s the only half decent thing in this mess.
As I’ve previously expressed, The Hound of the Baskervilles is not my favourite Holmes story, though it has its moments and there have been some enjoyable screen versions. Unfortunately, this pointlessly renamed offering retains all of the original’s faults but loses most of the best bits, despite wasting time on train journeys, telegram writing and pointless flashbacks to things we saw just minutes earlier. The animation is poor, even for a production of this level, with dire character design and a total lack of atmosphere (it opens with jolly music over views of primary-coloured countryside!) There are further flaws, but there’s no point wasting any more time going through them. I can only hope that the final entry in this series, The Valley of Fear, will be closer in quality to the other two installments.
In retrospect, I’m certain I underrated the 1939 adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I’m equally certain that I shall have no such regrets over this lame attempt.
#19: Beowulf: Director’s Cut (2007) April 19, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Action, Fantasy, 2000s, adaptations, 2 stars, Adventure, 2008, extended/director's cut, Historical , 5 comments2007 | Robert Zemeckis | 110 mins | DVD | 12
Back to catching up on last year’s films that I missed, this time with Beowulf in its Director’s Cut form — which, much to my amusement at the time, prominently featured a BBFC 18 icon on its initial cover art but only received a 12 when classified. Clearly the BBFC didn’t feel the “bolder, never-before-seen images” were any more unsuitable for kiddies than the originals. Personally, I’m not so sure. This version of the film is bloody violent (literally); more so than Lord of the Rings, which is the comparison the BBFC make. I’m not a parent and I’m not pro-censorship (far from it), but this feels more like a 15 to me.
Anyway, that’s not the point. What of the film itself? Well, let’s stick with the violence for a moment. It’s bloody and brutal… and completely undermined by the quality of the animation. I like animated films; I have absolutely no problem with animated films for adults; but the issue here is that most of the characters (especially the ‘extras’) seem of about the same quality as humans in Shrek. So while the battle scenes are often very violent, it becomes hard to take them seriously because it’s all too cartoony. Perhaps this is where classifying became problematic. But it’s not just the violence — the animation is awkward throughout. It’s not lifelike enough to be confused with reality, but not ‘animated’ enough to accept on that level. The characters move stiffly, are mostly too smooth (things do improve with aged characters in the final act), and are ‘dead behind the eyes’. The creatures are largely less realistic CGI than you’d see in a live action film. There are even times when things aren’t far above the graphics from a high-end computer game.
It’s not all bad. Anthony Hopkins is entertaining (and sounding more Welsh than ever), and I enjoyed Alan Silvestri’s score. The screenplay plays fast and loose with the original poem, but Gaiman and Avery have justified this and it’s mostly pretty good. While the third act initially slows the film’s pace to a crawl, the tiredness of an older Beowulf and an exciting duel with a dragon make it the best bit, despite the occasional lack of internal logic (why doesn’t the dragon’s fire burn his heart?) It goes someway to making up for the Beowulf-Grendel battle earlier on. In a rare attempt at genuine faithfulness, Beowulf strips naked for the fight so as to be on equal terms with Grendel. Understandably, the filmmakers don’t want his CGI manhood flying around, so he’s always shot with something helpfully blocking his groin. Problem is, the lengths and tricks involved in achieving this are too reminiscent of similar bits in Austin Powers, turning what should be a big heroic action sequence into a comedic exercise (though, it must be said, not an especially amusing one).
I wanted to like Beowulf. All those people on IMDb who whined that it was animated and you couldn’t do an animated action movie for adults annoyed me something rotten, and I really wanted them to be proved wrong. Plus I like many of Zemeckis’ other films, I like the poem, and there’s a lot of potential for a good adaptation. But the weak CGI, sometimes leaden dialogue (I forgot to mention the 300-wannabe “I am Beowulf” and comedically repetitive “I’ve come to kill your monster”), and uncertain level of violence all get in the way. For the majority of its running time, Beowulf left me with a sadly inescapable feeling of disappointment.
There seem to be a couple of conflicting reports on how different the two cuts are. A comparison lists 90 seconds of new material, but shows the running times to be four-and-a-half minutes different (without credits). On the other hand, the BBFC list the director’s cut as being just 30 seconds longer. However much is completely new, there’s definitely added blood in existing scenes and some shots have been replaced with more graphic versions.
#13: Ratatouille (2007) March 2, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Comedy, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008 , add a comment2007 | Brad Bird | 106 mins | DVD | U / G
My 2007 catch-up continues with Pixar’s highly-praised and award-winning latest, which currently sits as that animation studio’s highest entry in the IMDb Top 250 (their only films not to feature are A Bug’s Life, Monsters, Inc. and Cars). It seems a bit unfair to begin this review on such a downbeat note, but I personally don’t find such a position deserved. As is all too frequently the case, Ratatouille has become another victim of hype.
It’s been pretty impossible to avoid the praise that’s been heaped upon Ratatouille, be it unanimously positive reviews in papers, magazines and online, or overheard conversations in public, or the numerous high-profile awards it’s garnered (most recently, the best animation Oscar, plus a nomination for original screenplay). I was left expecting to be blown away by the best Pixar film made thus far. Sadly, this was not to be. It’s not as funny as Finding Nemo, or Toy Story, or Toy Story 2, or probably The Incredibles. Nor is it as cute as many of them. Or quite as heartwarming, to be honest. And the characters aren’t really as lovable.
OK, this is getting too depressing. The thing is, Ratatouille is a good film, but it is also a flawed one. It’s not nearly funny enough for a kid’s movie — laughs are almost non-existent in the first half and hard to come by in the second — and it’s too long, needing a good chunk taken out of that duller first half. It’s a bit confused as to who the villain is, meaning there’s a lack of real menace from either of the candidates. Despite a professed aim to make rats lovable, they’re not really. Even the potential love story is lacklustre because they wind up together far too quickly.
There I go again with the negatives. I think it’s far too easy to spot the faults in Ratatouille because everyone else has done such a thorough job on the positives, so I’m stuck analysing why I was so disappointed. There’s no denying how gorgeous it looks though — I can’t think of another CG film that even comes close. The level of detail is stunning, not just in set design (which includes whole intricately designed locations just for seconds-long sequences) but also in terms of what’s going on in the background. Check out Remy’s first conversation with his dad at the rats’ new home in Paris, for example: a simply shot-reverse-shot dialogue scene with two characters, but there’s continuously other rats talking, moving past, and so on in the background — all out of focus, not trying to be showy, like natural background detail in a live action film. No other CG film with such attention to ‘pointless’ detail comes to mind. But it also allows itself to be what it is — for want of a better word, a cartoon. Linguini waves his arms about like rope when he’s out of control, the chase sequences are madness, the design of the humans, cars, and almost everything else suitably stylised. And it all comes with a soft warm glow that is, frankly, beautiful.
Despite my criticisms, Ratatouille is nonetheless a four-star film as far as I’m concerned. I also think that, with its shortage of laughs and cute characters, and with the main areas of appreciation in facets such as cinematography, it’s more a movie for adult animation fans than children. It’s not Pixar’s best, but true to form it’s head and shoulders above most other CG animated fare. Approach it with lower expectations than most reviews would give you and perhaps you’ll enjoy it even more than I did.
#1: The Simpsons Movie (2007) January 1, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Comedy, 2000s, 4 stars, 2008 , add a comment2007 | David Silverman | 83 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13
And so 2008 begins with one of last summer’s biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America’s most well-known family. I’m not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem — I like the show, undoubtedly, but I’ve never watched it regularly and haven’t sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).
This might explain why the movie didn’t feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that’s fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I’m sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn’t do it justice.
It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn’t the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.
#97: A Study in Scarlet (1983) September 4, 2007
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, adaptations, 2 stars, 1980s, Mystery, 2007, Sherlock Holmes , add a comment1983 | Ian Mackenzie & Alex Nicholas | 49 mins | DVD | U
Peter O’Toole is again the voice of the famous sleuth in this disappointing animated adaptation of the first Sherlock Holmes mystery. The adaptation is faithful to the original novel’s structure (sadly, as its a somewhat bizarre one, and ripe for a more interesting interpretation), but loses any elements pertaining to Holmes and Watson’s first meeting. The animation seems more basic than the other entry in this particular series that I’ve seen, and O’Toole’s performance is flatter; the rest of the cast don’t fair any better. The story itself isn’t a bad one, but after being pleasantly surprised by The Sign of Four I just found this to be disappointing.
#83: The Sign of Four (1983) August 20, 2007
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, adaptations, 3 stars, 1980s, Mystery, 2007, Sherlock Holmes , add a comment1983 | Ian Mackenzie & Alex Nicholas | 49 mins | DVD | U
A slightly unusual one to review, this — it’s a 49-minute animated Sherlock Holmes adaptation from the ’80s, one of four in this particular series. But, as best I can tell from IMDb, it’s not specifically TV-based, and it does feature the voice of Peter O’Toole. Vocally he makes for a good Holmes, though the character design could be a little better. I can’t recall the original story well enough to comment on this as an adaptation, but it’s a decent mystery that’s well explained. The animation is not bad; certainly no worse than most kids’ TV animation from the ’80s and ’90s, and better than the flat Flash-animated stuff of today. A solid production.
#52a: four short films May 21, 2007
Posted by badblokebob in : Animation, Comedy, Romance, 2000s, 4 stars, 3 stars, 2 stars, British films, Short, 2007 , add a commentI’ve decided to collate these four short reviews, as posting them individually seemed… wasteful…
The End
2002 | Tim Clayton & Rob Crowther | download
A very brief film with a slightly silly, slightly amusing idea at its core. It doesn’t outstay its welcome, but it does lose something in that you can see the end coming almost from the start.
Bus Stop
2004 | Matt Abbiss | download
An animated, somewhat bizarre short about two people waiting at a bus stop. Done in a very simple style with sparse sound, but it’s competently executed and often effective. It has some amusing moments. Not bad, but mainly for people who like this kind of thing anyway.
Park
2005 | Andy Pearson | download
“Some humans in a park act like dogs” is essentially the premise of this film. It’s a decent enough concept for a short really, and is well executed with some nice little moments. Prettily shot in the Autumn, too.
Nine 1/2 Minutes
2002 | Josh Appignanesi & Misha Manson-Smith | download
David Tennant (yes, David Tennant!) and Zoe Telford (she’s been in a variety of TV stuff) star in this comedic short about two people on an uncomfortable blind date that lasts just about as long as you might suspect. Genuinely funny for the most part, and easily the most professionally executed of these four shorts, but it does have a somewhat confounding conclusion.
All of these shorts are currently available for free at LOVEFiLM.